Transcendent does not necessarily indicate 'coming from above' or not being
'immanent'. At least in Deleuze's early work (D&G may be different, I'm not
really read in it), the transcendental means no more really than 'that which
lies beyond experience' or perhaps 'beyond thought'. In this sense, difference
it itself, as that which cannot be thought but which can only be thought, it
is transcendent. The will to power is also transcendent: but it is still an
'internal and genetic element of forces' (see NIETZSHCE AND PHILOSOPHY).
Deleuze constantly refers to difference in itself being thought only through
transcendental operations. Nor, by the way, is transcendental necessarily
opposed to empirical in Deleuze; rather, it is those forms of transcendence
that are treated as something other than immanent.
I see Deleuze as putting a twist on Kantian and other transcendental arguments.
Whereas most of these arguments seek some sort of ground for empirical
phenomena, for the subject, etc. (i.e., the thing-in-itself, absolute
knowledge, Charles Taylor's moral sources, etc), Deleuze locates a 'groundless
ground' which -- to use Derridian terms because these are easy to use --
provide the conditions of possibility and impossibility for what they ground.
Hence, for example, the eternal return provides the ground for the repetitions
of habit and memory, while at the same time dissolving them, and making them
'repeat' only once.
As far as ideology is concerned, that is itself a term with multifarious
meanings and uses, which I don't really have time to go into now because I
short on time. But ideology need not be thought as 'unreal' or 'immaterial'
or simply 'illusionary' either. Anyway, perhaps I'll write something on that
later.
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------
'immanent'. At least in Deleuze's early work (D&G may be different, I'm not
really read in it), the transcendental means no more really than 'that which
lies beyond experience' or perhaps 'beyond thought'. In this sense, difference
it itself, as that which cannot be thought but which can only be thought, it
is transcendent. The will to power is also transcendent: but it is still an
'internal and genetic element of forces' (see NIETZSHCE AND PHILOSOPHY).
Deleuze constantly refers to difference in itself being thought only through
transcendental operations. Nor, by the way, is transcendental necessarily
opposed to empirical in Deleuze; rather, it is those forms of transcendence
that are treated as something other than immanent.
I see Deleuze as putting a twist on Kantian and other transcendental arguments.
Whereas most of these arguments seek some sort of ground for empirical
phenomena, for the subject, etc. (i.e., the thing-in-itself, absolute
knowledge, Charles Taylor's moral sources, etc), Deleuze locates a 'groundless
ground' which -- to use Derridian terms because these are easy to use --
provide the conditions of possibility and impossibility for what they ground.
Hence, for example, the eternal return provides the ground for the repetitions
of habit and memory, while at the same time dissolving them, and making them
'repeat' only once.
As far as ideology is concerned, that is itself a term with multifarious
meanings and uses, which I don't really have time to go into now because I
short on time. But ideology need not be thought as 'unreal' or 'immaterial'
or simply 'illusionary' either. Anyway, perhaps I'll write something on that
later.
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------